The TFRs may be so that the military rotorcraft patrols have clear space to
work in. I certainly wouldn't want to go flying where they are making
severe maneuvers.


"Guy Elden Jr." wrote in message
...
With the issuance today of a flood of TFRs covering NYC, Las Vegas, and
Southern California, and the resulting response from AOPA's Phil Boyer,
I'm
beginning to think that the approach they're taking toward these TFRs is
wrong. Here is what Boyer had to say about the NYC and LV TFRs:

"Security-related TFRs usually single out general aviation aircraft, which
have never been used in a terrorist attack," said AOPA President Phil
Boyer.
"The restrictions are an additional burden for pilots to carry. AOPA
believes they should only be issued based on credible threats - not on a
political need to be seen taking strong measures."

His assertion that GA aircraft have never been used in a terrorist attack
is
flawed logic. The same could have been said pre-9/11/01 about airliners.
What kind of reputation would AOPA have now, if they had complained about
every Presidential TFR issued before 9/11 using that statement? What kind
of
reputation do you think they'll have if GA aircraft are ever used in an
actual attack? I think he needs to stop using that argument... while the
amount of damage that could be caused by a single engine piston powered
aircraft is likely to be small, does AOPA really think that's going to
stop
a bunch of crazed, delusional people from trying?

Boyer's next statement, that the "restrictions are an additional burden
for
pilots to carry" is, at least for me, wrong. I feel no extra burden having
to talk to ATC to transit a TFR area. In fact, I feel safer knowing I've
got
a second pair of eyes looking over my shoulder. After all, getting a
squawk
code from ATC essentially means you've got flight following. And most of
the
truly temporary TFRs don't prohibit flight except for a very small area,
with the remainder of the area perfectly accessible to pilots. Having to
talk to ATC should not consitute an extra "burden" for pilots. After all,
would you like to fly in an airspace system without it?

I do think that the government is issuing most of these TFRs for no other
reason that to cover their asses. We as pilots know that they will
absolutely not prevent any sort of attack. Short of putting SAM batteries
around the entire island of Manhattan with an authorization to shoot upon
_any_ transgression into the restricted zone, you're just not going to
stop
people from flying where they want. Maybe it'll ultimately come down to
that, as it seems to have around D.C. But I'll bet that the public would
get
into a pretty big uproar over an accidental shoot-down of a pilot taking
her
husband and kids on a sightseeing trip down the Hudson river.

--
Guy Elden Jr.